Jump to main content.

Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc.--Adverse Abandonment--in Napa Valley, CA

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.

 [Federal Register: April 26, 2001 (Volume 66, Number 81)]
[Notices]
[Page 21039-21041]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr26ap01-145]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board
[STB Docket No. AB-582]

Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc.--Adverse Abandonment--in Napa
Valley, CA

    On April 6, 2001, the Napa Valley Flood Control and Water
Conservation District (District) filed an adverse application under 49
U.S.C. 10903

[[Page 21040]]

requesting that the Surface Transportation Board (Board) authorize the
abandonment by the Napa Valley Wine Train, Inc. (NVWT) of segments of
NVWT's line located between milepost 67.50 and milepost 68.62, milepost
68.73 and milepost 69.33, and milepost 69.44 and milepost 70.00, in
Napa County, CA. The three segments, totaling 2.28 miles, traverse
United States Postal Service ZIP Codes 94558 and 94559 and include the
stations of Rocktram and Napa, CA.
    The District indicates that it filed the adverse abandonment
application so it could proceed with plans to construct a federally-
approved flood control project on the Napa River. These plans
assertedly would require relocating the three segments of NVWT's rail
line. According to the District, the relocations would be performed at
no cost to NVWT, would provide NVWT with new facilities, and would
allow NVWT to continue operations with very little interruption during
the relocation phase. The District maintains that NVWT has refused to
consent to the relocations unless the District extensively upgrades
NVWT's facilities. The District claims that this refusal delays the
flood control project and threatens its federal funding. To overcome
NVWT's refusal to consent to the relocations, the District asks the
Board to grant adverse abandonment for the segments, so that it can
proceed under state condemnation law, if necessary, to relocate the
segments, allowing construction of the flood control facilities. This
agency and its predecessor have long held that granting an adverse
abandonment application would remove this agency's primary jurisdiction
over the line, thereby subjecting the line to actions under state law,
including condemnation.\1\
    In a decision served in this proceeding on March 30, 2001, the
District was granted a waiver from several requirements of the Board's
abandonment regulations in 49 CFR part 1152. Specifically, the District
was granted waiver from 49 CFR 1152.10-14 and 1152.24(e)(1) pertaining
to system diagram maps, and the publishing and posting notice
requirements of 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(3) and (a)(4) and 1152.24(c). The
decision also waived certain information required for an abandonment
application in 49 CFR 1152.22 and permitted the District to include in
its application only: the information called for in 49 CFR
1152.22(a)(1) through (4), and (6) through (8); the limited service
information and revenue data which NVWT has provided to it; the name of
each station on the line; certain additional information; and a draft
Federal Register notice. The District was also granted waiver from the
consummation notification requirements in 49 CFR 1152.24(f) and the 1-
year authorization limit in 49 CFR 1152.29(e)(2). However, the District
complied with the pre-filing notice requirements of 49 CFR
1152.20(a)(1) and (2) and 1152.20(b)(1) and served copies of its
application on NVWT, the shipper served by the line,\2\ and other
parties listed in 49 CFR 1152.20(a)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See Modern Handcraft, Inc.--Abandonment, 363 I.C.C. 969
(1981); Kansas City Pub. Ser. Frgt. Operations Exempt.--Aban., 7
I.C.C.2d 216, 224-26 (1990); and Chelsea Property Owners--Aban.--The
Consol. R. Corp., 8 I.C.C.2d 773, 778 (1992), aff'd sub nom. Conrail
v. ICC, 29 F.3d 706 (D.C. Cir. 1994).
    \2\ The only shipper that is identified as being served by the
line is B.P.B. Marco Paper Co. See Exhibit C to the District's
petition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The District states that, to the best of its knowledge, the line
does not contain federally granted rights-of-way. Any documentation in
the District's possession will be made available promptly to those
requesting it. The applicant's entire case for abandonment was filed
with the application.
    The interests of railroad employees will be protected by the
conditions set forth in Oregon Short Line R. Co.--Abandonment--Goshen,
360 I.C.C. 91 (1979).
    Any interested person may file written comments concerning the
proposed abandonment or protests (including the protestant's entire
opposition case) by May 21, 2001. All interested persons should be
aware that, following any abandonment of rail service and salvage of
the line, the line may be suitable for other public use, including
interim trail use. Any request for a public use condition under 49
U.S.C. 10905 (49 CFR 1152.28) or for a trail use condition under 16
U.S.C. 1247(d) (49 CFR 1152.29) must be filed by May 21, 2001. Each
trail use request must be accompanied by a $150 filing fee. See 49 CFR
1002.2(f)(27). However, as noted in the March 30 decision, the District
sought waivers and exemptions from the OFA procedures in 49 CFR 1152.27
and 49 U.S.C. 10904, the public use procedures in 49 CFR 1152.28 and 49
U.S.C. 10905, and the trail use/rail banking procedures in 49 CFR
1152.29. These requests will be addressed in the decision on the
merits. The due date for applicant's reply is June 5, 2001.
    Persons opposing the proposed adverse abandonment who wish to
participate actively and fully in the process should file a protest.
Persons who may oppose the abandonment but who do not wish to
participate fully in the process by submitting verified statements of
witnesses containing detailed evidence should file comments. Parties
seeking information concerning the filing of protests should refer to
section 1152.25.
    All filings in response to this notice must refer to STB Docket No.
AB-582 and must be sent to: (1) Surface Transportation Board, Office of
the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, NW, Washington, DC
20423-0001 and (2) William A. Mullins, Troutman Sanders LLP, 401 9th
Street, NW, Suite 1000, Washington, DC 20004-2134. The original and 10
copies of all comments or protests shall be filed with the Board with a
certificate of service. Except as otherwise set forth in part 1152,
every document filed with the Board must be served on all parties to
the abandonment proceeding. 49 CFR 1104.12(a).
    Persons seeking further information concerning abandonment
procedures may contact the Board's Office of Public Services at (202)
565-1592 or refer to the full abandonment or discontinuance regulations
at 49 CFR part 1152.
    The March 30 decision noted that the District had requested waiver
from the environmental and historic preservation reporting requirements
found in 49 CFR 1105, 49 CFR 1152.20(c), and 49 CFR 1152.22(f), arguing
that its proposal has no environmental impact and therefore qualifies
for treatment under 49 CFR 1105.6(c). However, the March 30 decision
indicated that the District should make that showing in its
application, rather than seeking a waiver.
    In its application, the District asserts the environmental and
historic review process has already been completed and certified
through an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers. The District further argues that the proposal
is more like a rail relocation than an abandonment and consequently is
exempt from environmental review because it would not exceed the
thresholds set by the Board at 49 CFR 1105.7(e)(4 and 5). According to
the District, the only effects of the relocation would be brief
interruptions to NVWT's freight traffic during the six weeks of
construction.
    The Board's Section of Environmental Analysis (SEA) has determined
that there is no need for additional environmental or historic review
of the District's proposal. Any environmental/historic review performed
by the Board would be duplicative and contrary to the goals of the
National Environmental Policy Act. SEA also agreed with the

[[Page 21041]]

District that no further environmental analysis is warranted because
the proposed actions would not result in impacts that would exceed the
thresholds set forth in section 1105.7(e)(4 and 5). Questions
concerning environmental issues may be directed to SEA at (202) 565-
1545. (TDD for the hearing impaired is available at 1-800-877-8339.)
    Board decisions and notices are available on our website at http://
WWW.STB.DOT.GOV.

    Decided: April 20, 2001.
    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-10441 Filed 4-25-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P

 
 

Local Navigation

Jump to main content.